AGAINST DOCTOR

Stratford Evening Post, Volume IV, Issue 223, 1 September 1936, Page 6

AGAINST DOCTOR

WOMAN'S CLAIM. ACTION FOR DAMAGES. Nurse V Alleged Negligence At Operation. QUESTION OF LIABILITY. Press Association— Copyright. Dunedin, August 31, A claim by Isabel Daisy Ingram for £7OO damages against Dr. Henry Walden Fitzgerald was heard by Mr. Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court to-day, when it was contended that the doctor, being in charge c f an operating theatre, was responsible for an alleged mistake of a sister in painting the plaintiff with iodised phenol, an injurious liquid, instead of iodine, before an operation. Mr. E. J. Andersqn, who appeared for the plaintiff, said she went into Prospect House private hospital on October 28, 1932, and the next morning she underwent an operation there. The doctors in attendance were the defendant, plaintiff's medical adviser, who was the surgeon in charge of the theatre, an assistant surgeon, Dr. Gerald Fitzgerald, and an anaesthetist, Dr. James Fitzgerald. Also in the operating theatre were three sisters, Sisters Wicks, O'Meara and' Leckie. . ■

A double operation was commenced, but when the second part of the opera-

tion was about to be commenced it was discovered 1 - that the patient had been painted with iodised phenol instead of iodine. lodised phenol was a substance having a drastic effect on the human frame, and it contained a high percentage of carbolic acid. Very prompt and active steps were taken to neutralise its ejects, but it was not possible to proceed with the second operation.

For five the patient received, treatment for burning, and then she had' the second part of her operation. It had been expected she would be in hospital for a .fortnight, but altogether she was there for nearly six weeks. For* six months after she went home she was partially an invalid, and to-day she was ;highly neurasthenic. ■>>■ ■ It was contended tha,t the case raised

an important and interesting point of vicarious liability. . It would be submitted .that if there were not proper facilities for care in the use of drugs, or if I the sister was not properly experienced in this use the doctor would be vicarijcusly liable; The fact that the wrong | bottle was ;there at a time when it was j not required showed that there was j want of strict supervision. j Evidence was' given by the plaintiff I find by several others, including Sister | Leckie, who stated that she should have I seen the .phenol was removed after the j first .part of the operation, and put back I*i its cupboard. j For the defence Mr. C. L, Calvert said 'that every case of negligence depended j.uppn the faajts as .proved. :He submitI ted that >there was.np ruje of law which j could su.ppprt the view that,the'relationship existing between an operating surigeon and a' nurse assisting him" in an v | operation was such: as to'impbse a vicari- | ous j liability on se; surgeon, :The ,rela-. tfonship of : and servant., did not j exist. | The only negligence" for [ wfrjch. the defendant could be' made liable was' for. .his ■■ own' personal negligence,' arid' this was. not alleged. ~;He also: claimed' chat the turnings was entirely superficial and was heajed in fpiir weeks! The defendant' in' evidence detailed : measures' taken -to remedy the effects of iodised phenol. Danger of carbolic .poisoning was oyer in about 36 hours, ..and .danger Jrom burning a ie,w days, later. He did npt expect any permanent disability from poisoning! •The.defendant was;still giving evidence when the court adjourned until tomorrow morning.